Row over women-only sleeping berths on trains; Men V Mumsnet!

And other women on this thread have detailed their experiences of being sexually assaulted on overnight trains. Your anecdotes about your life do not establish that this is not a problem.

And fuck right off with the "first world problem" - you're not any less raped as a woman if you happen to come from a relatively wealthy western nation.

The advertising is wrong, you have every reason to object.

Your employer is at fault, raise it with them.

I have taken the chance and survived ,( with any threat being from a self identified male). It seems a tiny chance is being blown up into a huge issue - given that the sleeper train is in any case an unnecessary luxury.

First world problem

Every sleeper train has a carriage with the usual seats, which are cheaper. No one has to use a sleeper to get to wherever they need. A sleeper is a luxury. Use it or not, according to your preference.

Did you miss the part where employers often book the shared accommodation?

Allington. Once again: why do you think single-sex accommodation (as still advertised by Cal Sleeper!) is an unreasonable thing to want?

None of your posts answer this question.

Our funders (various international bodies such as the UN and EU) need gender rights outcomes.

Your funders are actually referring to sex.

When your definition of women includes men it becomes a meaningless definition though.

The TW want in with the women.

This will allow in anyone who says they are women.

Therefore, the TW will also be at risk of being in with a dodgy bloke.

Who does any of this help?

The suggestion essentailly seems to be that women don't use this service.

So women must "choose" to restrict their lives because of male violence.

So fresh, new and progressive.

What happens if a passing TW gets put in a single sex carriage with a massive bloke who is very intimidating but happens to ID as a woman that day. Would they be happy? I suspect not. But, we have to be?

I think people who are genetically male who don't want to share with males are the ones who should be paying for a single.

Yes, exactly. Why is it the women who need to pay extra for a single?

Our funders (various international bodies such as the UN and EU) need gender rights outcomes. Our program shows changes in attitudes to statements such as 'sometimes women deserve to be beaten', for example (both men and women less likely to agree after our program). And similar statements reflecting an increased belief in the value of women.

You have (unlike all too many women - and men) a choice

Again, the Top Trumps of Suffering.

Again, women expecting their rights are positioned as the unreasonable ones.

I think people who are genetically male who don't want to share with males are the ones who should be paying for a single.
I find it bizarre that women should be expected to pay extra to not share with genetic males where as the genetic males shouldn't. If men aren't that scary then let the men identifying as women share with them.
People with XY chromosomes are either not a problem to share with or they are.
I would be far happier sharing a cabin with a woman identifying as male than a man identifying as female.
I find it bizarre that men identifying as women (whatever that means, I don't identify as a woman I just am one) feel they are too precious to share with the scary men but think we should be expected to do so.

We have faced that issue. Our groups usually meet in places that are easily accessible such as public libraries - which have toilets. Some single sex and some unisex. Whatever is safe and accessible. Recently, having started an LGBTI+ support group we have discussed the issue of toilets. We have made sure toilets are single cubicle and that has been sufficient so far. It's under review to make sure everyone can participate. We also serve some very traditional religious communities, and balance their needs as well.

Then pay for a single

You have (unlike all too many women - and men) a choice. Pay extra and be rested. Pay less and be more uncomfortable

It is something the vast majority of the world understands

You seem to be completely incapable of understanding the rail company offers the choice of sharing (and being uncomfortable and cramped with another woman) but when the passenger turns up she might be sharing with a person whose body is fully, biologically male.

Also, once again, given the prevalence of sexual violence in South Africa, have you asked the women you work with there whether they would like the toilets your NGO is working to provide to be single sex or not?

Then pay for a single.

Not everyone can afford to pay for a single. Because they are more expensive. People who can afford to pay for a single generally do pay for a single, because it's nicer.

Once again: why do you think single-sex accommodation (as still advertised by Cal Sleeper!) is an unreasonable thing to want?

Then pay for a single.

You have (unlike all too many women - and men) a choice. Pay extra and be rested. Pay less and be more uncomfortable.

It is something the vast majority of the world understands.

Or perhaps, given they are educated and independent women, you have an incredibly ignorant and prejudiced view of black women, who are capable of understanding the complexities of gender relations as much (hey, maybe more?) than you do?

This is completely irrelevant to the point being debated.

The Caledonian Sleeper offers single sex segregated accommodation for those who want to share but in reality are offerring accommodation based on self- declared gender.

Personally this does not affect me- sharing with any stranger is a non-starter (and personally I also think some of the " a trans woman might hear me unwrap a tampon so we can't have unusex toilets " arguments on FWR are ridiculous) but even I get this point.

Also, you haven't answered my questions: why do you think it is unreasonable for women to complain about the (unacknowledged) change in policy? And why is it unreasonable for women to want single-sex sleeping accommodation?

Of course women may not want to share with men they don't know. Don't book a sleeper. If you have one booked, cancel and demand a refund - I am with you all the way.

You still haven't answered the question around why transwomen who don't want to share facilities with men are perfectly reasonable in their concerns and we should legislate for their concerns, but women who feel the same have to either budge over or change their plans, but cannot legitimately talk about their discomfort around sharing with a man?

Allington, you admit yourself you are not familiar with the Caledonian sleeper. Many of us here have used it often.

If you need to be at your destination for an 8am meeting that you need to be awake for, and you want to actually sleep the night before, travelling in the upright seats is really not an option. You can (and I'm sure will!) dismiss this out of hand as it doesn't fit your 'these women are just being silly spoilt brats' narrative, but I've travelled on the sleeper, including in the seated carriages. I know what I'm talking about here.

Every sleeper train has a carriage with the usual seats, which are cheaper. No one has to use a sleeper to get to wherever they need. A sleeper is a luxury. Use it or not, according to your preference.

Its simple really, 'women only' should mean has a vagina not a penis, (therefore cannot Rape....)

Also it should be perfectly understandable, to all people of all orientations, why this is fair and safe.